Tree disputes are common in Conn.
‘No. 1 complaint,’ says conservation official
When Gov. Ned Lamont found himself in hot water with neighbors and local wetlands officials in his hometown of Greenwich recently, the source of the conflict was a familiar one to the city’s longtime conservation director, Denise Savageau.
The governor admitted to being involved in the facilitating of the illegal removal of more than 180 trees and bushes from shared land behind his Greenwich home, including an area of protected wetlands and, inadvertently, another neighbor’s property. The pending case could result in fines for the governor and local neighborhood association.
Savageau, who retired in 2018, said that disputes over trees were the most common issue she dealt with over two decades with the Greenwich Conservation Department, where she said she often fielded multiple calls a month from upset neighbors. (She also made clear that she was not familiar with the circumstances of the governor’s case, and could only speak generally on the topic).
“There are some folks who don’t really pay attention to that and other people who are ground into the landmarks, whether it be a forest or individual tree,” Savageu said. “That’s the No. 1 complaint.”
Despite being a widespread source of disputes, activists and land use officials say that many homeowners in Connecticut remain unaware of local rules and regulations surrounding tree removal. Misunderstandings, they say, often touch off conflicts and lead to fines.
Earlier this week, Lamont took responsibility for the errant removal of the trees — which he said were mostly storm damaged or felled by earlier utility work — before adding that he relied upon the landscaper to obtain the proper permission to do the work. The landscaper, Your Gardening Angels, has not responded to multiple requests for comment.
“I didn’t know you need a written permit to clean up a dead tree, but now I know and it will never happen again,” Lamont said.
While most experienced contractors will know the rules in a particular town and check with the owner to ensure they have legal permission to begin working, Alan Siniscalchi, the president of the Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions, said that the responsibility ultimately falls on the person contracting for the work to obtain the proper permits.
“Generally most contractors are aware that they do need to get permission from the local wetland’s agency,” Siniscalchi said. “But it does happen.”
Complaints about tree removal are also steady thorn in the side of environmental advocates such as Save the Sound’s Bill Lucey, who agreed that a lack of knowledge about wetland habitats and their protections is a recurrent problem.
“Greenwich usually has a pretty good track record of keeping an eye on their wetlands regulations,” Lucey said. “But sometimes contractors come in from out of town and they just see some brush and they’re going to go clear it. So yeah, there’s a lot of education that needs to happen in this state.”
Disputes between wetlands officials and landowners over clear cutting date back decades in Connecticut. Siniscalchi pointed to one notable case involving Haddam’s Goodspeed Airport that ended up reaching the state’s Supreme Court. (That case, in which the airport owner argued that Federal Aviation Administration regulations should preclude local ordinances, was decided in favor of regulators).
Established under state law in 1972, inland wetlands agencies exist in every Connecticut town, reporting data to the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. A DEEP spokesman said this week that agency does not track violations by those agencies specifically related to tree removal.
In an effort to increase the effectiveness of those agencies, state lawmakers this year are considering legislation, H.B. 5170, that would require every member and employee of an inland wetlands agency to undergo regular training through DEEP, instead of the current requirement that only one members needs to receive training.
The bill has the support of advocates such as Lucey, though municipal leaders have raised concerns that the requirements could deter volunteers from serving on wetlands agencies.
“I think if we get everybody on the commission educated that’s going to spread out more in the community,” Lucey said.
For Savageau, the simplest recommendation to avoid conflicts is for landowners to always check with inland wetlands and other local land use officials before beginning work that involves tree removal. Oftentimes, she added, officials will allow the work to proceed after checking property lines and asking for more details about the scope of the project.
“A lot of people don’t understand how important even a single tree is from an air quality perspective,” Savageau said. “If you’re cutting down a forest then it really is about a host of things from water quality to air quality, carbon sequestration, there’s a lot of services that forests provide us.”